read_news

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool opens a page and returns headlines/snippets, but does not mention side effects (e.g., navigating away from current app), device requirements, network usage, or behavior on failure. The 'smoke workflow' hint is vague and insufficient for understanding the tool's operational impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences and gets to the point. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second gives context. No filler or redundant phrasing. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information, so it is concise but under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It neither explains the parameters' meanings nor the tool's overall workflow. The 'smoke workflow' reference is too vague. A tool with this complexity needs a much richer description to be safely and correctly invoked by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It does not mention any of the 7 parameters (url, device, wait_s, bundle_id, max_articles, max_headlines, save_screenshots) or provide any hint about how they affect the tool's behavior. This is a major gap, as the agent is left with only parameter names and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Open a news page and return structured headlines plus article snippets.' This specifies the verb (open/return), resource (news page), and outcome (headlines + snippets). It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like extract_articles, but the mention of 'iOS Chrome/WebDriver smoke workflow' provides some unique context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'This is the iOS Chrome/WebDriver smoke workflow exposed as a single tool.' This tells the agent this is intended for smoke testing on iOS Chrome via WebDriver. It does not offer explicit exclusions or mention alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.